Dismissed

Rajesh Kumar v. The Union Of India Through The Secretary Ministry Of Home Affairs And Ors.

Jharkhand HC10 Jan 2024WPC/276/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a writ petition seeking appointment letters for the post of Constable in CAPFs and Rifleman in Assam Rifles. The petitioner, who secured 48 marks, alleged unfair selection practices despite qualifying in all stages. The Court held that the petitioner was ineligible as his marks were lower than the last selected candidate for his category and state, and the adv

What the court decided

AI extract

Rajesh Kumar Vs The Union Of India Through… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(S) No. 276 of 2018

¶4

Rajesh Kumar ..… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, Cabinet Secretariat, Raisina Hill, P.O.-New Delhi (GPO), New Delhi.

¶7

The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India having its office at Block no.-4, 3^rd Floor, Old JNU Campus, New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi-110067.

¶8

The Staff Selection Commission, an attached office of the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India through its Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination having its headquarter at Block No.-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110504

¶9

The Regional Director (ER), Staff Selection Commission, 1^st MSO Building (8^th Floor), 234/4, Acharya Jagdish Chandra Bose Road, Kolkata, West Bengal-700020.

¶10

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶12

¶13

For the Petitioner : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Adv For the Respondents : Ms. Nitu Sinha, C.G.C

¶14

¶15

14/Dated: 10^th January, 2024

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondent No.3 to issue appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Constable (GD) in CAPFs (Central Armed Police Forces) and Rifleman in Assam Rifles.

¶18

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance to the notice published by respondent No.3 on 24.01.2015, the petitioner applied for the post of Constable in CAPFs, NIA & SSF & Rifleman in Assam Rifles on 30.01.2015 and his Roll No. was 4205012181. After scrutiny of the application, the petitioner was asked to appear in physical eligibility test which was scheduled to be held on 27.05.2015 at Sukurhutu Camp of 40^th Battalion of Indo Tibetan Border Police Force situated at Kanke. After passing of physical eligibility test, the petitioner was asked to appear in written examination on 04.10.2015 which he duly appeared and was declared successful.

¶19

The case of the petitioner is that his name appeared in

¶20

¶21

the result published on 14.03.2016 in List-2 at serial no. 6724 at page no.135. The petitioner qualified for medical examination against vacancies reserved for Naxal/Militancyaffected districts. During the medical examination which was held on 11.05.2016, the petitioner was found unfit and against the said medical report the petitioner filed an appeal before the competent authority. Pursuant thereto; he was given an opportunity vide letter dated 03.08.2016 and was asked to appear before the Review Medical Examination Board and by the Review Medical Examination Board, he was declared fit. However, in spite of being declared successful in the physical eligibility test, written examination and medical fitness test, respondent no.3 did not issue an appointment letter to the petitioner. The petitioner had also represented before the respondent no.4 but till date, he did not receive the appointment letter for joining.

¶22

4. A counter-affidavit has been filed in this case wherein stand has been taken by the respondent that as per the electronic verified data received from the coordinating CAPF i.e., CRPF authority, the petitioner is an ST category candidate belonging to Naxal Affected District vacancy type (code-54) of Jharkhand State (code 16) and he has secured 48 marks in total in the written examination. It is further indicated in the said paragraph that as per the write up of the force allocation published by the CRPF authority on 06.02.2017 on their website, marks obtained by the last selected candidate corresponding to the category and State of the petitioner of both Naxal/Militancy affected districts, the petitioner could not qualify. For ready reference para 1 (iv) is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶23

“ ( iv) That as per the electronic verified data received from the coordinating CAPF i.e. CRPF authority, the petitioner, Shri Rajesh Kumar is a ST category candidate belonging to Naxal Affected District Vacancy type (code 54) of Jharkhand State (code 16). The petitioner viz. Shri Rajesh Kumar has secured 48 marks in total in the written examination. He was declared ‘UNFIT’ in the Detailed Medical Examination (DME) and in the Review Medical Examination (RME) held on 23.08.2016, he was declared ‘FIT’. As per the write up of the Force allocation published by the CRPF authority on 06.02.2017 on their website www.crpf.nic.in, www.crpf.gov.in and www.crpfindia.co.in, marks obtained by the last selected candidates corresponding to the category and State of the

¶24

¶25

petitioners for both Naxal/Militancy affected districts and general vacancies for different forces are as under;-

¶26

Name of Post with code	Marks obtained by the la Jharkhand State(Total General Vacancies	st selected ST candidates of Marks) Naxal/Militancy affected districts
BSF(A)	62	58
CISF(B)	60	54
CRPF(C)	57	52
SSB(D)	55	53
ITBP(E)	56	53
Assam Rifles (F)	72	54
NIA	86	No vacancy
SSF	79	No vacancy

¶27

It is evident from the above table that the petitioner did not secure the requisite marks in total of the written part of the examination for being selected against both Naxal/Militancy affected districts and general vacancy type in any of the forces under their respective category for the State of Jharkhand. All the vacancies notified for ST category under the Naxal/Militancy Affected Districts of the State of Jharkhand were already completely filled. Hence, the petitioner has not been found eligible to be declared as finally selected in the examination.”

¶28

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the stand taken by the respondent is only to harass this petitioner and the respondents are bent upon to reject the candidature of this petitioner. Initially he was declared unfit; however, when the Review Medical Board declared him fit, they have taken another ground of rejecting his case, inasmuch as, candidates whose domicile was of other states were having less marks but they have been qualified and the petitioner having 48 marks was having much higher than those candidates of different domicile, has been rejected.

¶29

Further, there was no mention in the notification to indicate the domicile in the application form; rather this is a subsequent stand of the respondent on the ground of domicile. He further referred to the application form and submits that in column no. –II (Annexure-2) wherein the petitioner had to fill in his domicile State/UT; since the petitioner was candidate of Jharkhand, he filled Jharkhand in the domicile column and by filling Jharkhand in the domicile column would not ipso facto mean that he was interested for Jharkhand domicile and since other candidates who have secured less marks than the petitioner of different domicile,

¶30

¶31

the petitioner should be considered for appointment. 6. Learned counsel for the Union of India relies on its counter-affidavit and further submits that allocation of various CAPFs has been done as per merit cum preference of Forces exercised by the candidates, subject to availability of vacancies in the State/UT concerned, considering Border and Naxal/Militancy affected districts and category-wise reservation.

¶32

Candidates belonging to Border/Naxal or Militancy affected districts have been considered against vacancies in such areas or in the State concerned against General Vacancies as may be advantageous to them. Therefore, vacancies in the respective category of the candidates against the vacancies of the concerned State of the candidates to which they belong along with the vacancies of Border/Naxal or Militancy affected districts have been filled up from the available candidates for the State and Border/Naxal or Militancy affected districts in the respective category who qualified in the DME/RME.

¶33

She further submits that the claim made by the petitioner to have been declared as finally selected in the Constable (GD) Examination, 2015 by the Commission is not correct. The reason for his non-selection was that he could not secure marks more than the marks obtained by the last selected candidate in his respective choice of State, category and vacancy type; thus, he has not been found eligible for final selection in the Constable (GD) exam 2015. Merely, qualifying in all three stages of the examination does not confer upon the candidates any right to be finally selected as the final selection is done on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidate in the written examination on the basis of the number of vacancies available in different Forces in different States for different Categories, vacancy types and preference of forces exercised by the candidates. Hence the non-selection of the petitioner following the principles adopted by the Commission for processing the result is fully justified and legal.

¶34

¶35

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record and averments made in the respective affidavits, it appears that a notice was published by respondent no.3 in the employment news on 24.01.2015 for the post of Constable (GD) in CAPFs, NIA & SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles. The petitioner duly appeared in the examination and secure 48 marks. It is the case of the petitioner that other candidates of other domicile who secured less marks have been qualified and the petitioner’s case has been rejected only on the ground that he opted for Jharkhand Domicile, however, there was no specific stipulation in the advertisement that their case cannot be considered with other domiciles and it is a clear case of pick and choose.

¶36

In this regard it is necessary to go through the advertisement itself. Note (III) of the Advertisement is quoted herein below:-

¶37

“Note III: As the vacancies have been allotted to the concerned States/UTs, candidates are required to submit domicile certificates of the states indicated by them in the application at the time of medical examination/document verification failing which his/her candidature will be cancelled forthright and the candidate will not be allowed to undergo medical examination. If a candidate produces domicile certificate issued by a state other than the state mentioned in his application, he will be allowed to change the state code at the time of verification of documents.”

¶38

Thereafter, further process of clarification and format of certificate indicates that Candidates will be considered for recruitment in their respective State/UT on production of valid “Domicile Certificate” issued by the competent authority so authorized by the concerned State/UT to prove their domiciliary status at the time of documents verification failing which his/her candidature will be cancelled forthright. If a candidate produces domicile certificate issued by a State other than the state mentioned in his/her application he/she will be considered for the state for which he/she has submitted domicile certificate and will be allowed to change the state code at the time of medical/verification of documents.

¶39

8. After perusing the aforesaid relevant clause/stipulation

¶40

¶41

in the advertisement coupled with the application form filled up by the petitioner, it appears that in the column of State/UT of domicile, the petitioner has mentioned Jharkhand (16).

¶42

By conjoint reading of this column and Note (iii), it can be easily inferred that if a candidate produces domicile certificate issued by State other than the State mention in his application, he will be allowed to change the State code at the time of verification of document.

¶43

In other words, when the candidate has filled the code of a particular State ordinarily, he will be considered for that State and if he produces domicile certificate of other State, he would be considered for the other state provided he produces the original domicile certificate.

¶44

9. In the instant case, the petitioner submitted an online application claiming himself to be an ST category candidate with domicile of Jharkhand State against the Naxalite/ Militancy Affected Area and the General type vacancies of the State of Jharkhand for Constable (GD) in CAPFs and Rileman (GD) in Assam Rifles Examination, 2015 for which the recruitment notice was published by the Staff Selection Commission in the Employment New/Rozgar Samachar dated 24.01.2015 and on the website of the Commission at www.ssc.nic.in.

¶45

Para 4 (C) of the said notice stipulates that: Candidates will be considered for recruitment in their respective State/UT on production of valid “Domicile Certificate” issued by the competent authority so authorized by the concerned State/UT to prove their domiciliary status at the time of documents verification failing which his/her candidature will be cancelled forthright. If a candidate produces domicile certificate issued by a state other than the state mentioned in his/her application he/she will be considered for the state for which he/she has submitted domicile certificate and will be allowed to change the state code at the time of medical/verification of documents .

¶46

The petitioner has submitted copy of his application details registered against Registration ID 51105518777 for

¶47

¶48

Recruitment of Constable (GD) in CAPFs and Rifleman in Assam Rifles Exhibition-2015 at Annexure-2 of the writ petition where he mentioned against the column for State/UT of Domicile as Jharkhand (16). Even in the column for postal address & permanent/domiciles address, the petitioner had mentioned his state as Jharkhand.

¶49

Further, it is also necessary to indicate that the petitioner is an ST candidate, belongs to naxal affected district vacancy type code 54 of Jharkhand Cant (16) and has secured 48 marks in total in the written examination which is lower than the last selected S.T. candidate in any type of post for Jharkhand State and thus he could not qualify. The claim of the petitioner that other candidates for other zones were having less marks than the petitioner and have been appointed has no meaning in view of the discussions made in paragraph 8 herein above.

¶50

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the clauses mentioned in the advertisement itself, I do not find any merit in the instant writ application and the same is, hereby, dismissed.

¶51

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶52

Amardeep/

Rajesh Kumar v. The Union Of India Through The Secretary Ministry Of Home Affairs And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rajesh Kumar v. The Union Of India Through The Secretary Ministry Of Home Affairs And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Horil Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Om Prakash Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjoy Kumar Chaudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand Thr the Pr Secretary School Education and Literacy Department

Surendra Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rambha Kumari Vs State of Jharkhand

Kapil Muni Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand